My goal is to inform potential law school students and applicants of the ugly realities of attending law school. DO NOT ATTEND UNLESS: (1) YOU GET INTO A TOP 8 LAW SCHOOL ON SCHOLARSHIP; (2) YOU GET A FULL-TUITION SCHOLARSHIP TO ATTEND; (3) YOU HAVE EMPLOYMENT AS AN ATTORNEY SECURED THROUGH A RELATIVE OR CLOSE FRIEND; OR (4) YOU ARE FULLY AWARE BEFOREHAND THAT YOUR HUGE INVESTMENT IN TIME, ENERGY, AND MONEY DOES NOT, IN ANY WAY, GUARANTEE A JOB AS AN ATTORNEY OR IN THE LEGAL INDUSTRY.

“The Council of the American Bar Association (ABA) Section on Legal Education and Admission to the Bar approved today the merger of Rutgers’ law schools into one unified Rutgers Law School with two distinct locations in Camden and Newark, during its annual meeting. In June, the ABA’s Accreditation Committee voted to recommend approval of the proposed merger as did the Rutgers Board of Governors in April.

"We are elated with the ABA’s decision to approve the new Rutgers Law School,” says Acting Co-Dean John Oberdiek. “We believe strongly that our ambitious model allows for increased opportunities for all Rutgers Law students to advance their career searches and to learn from a wider selection of world-class faculty.”

Keenly attuned to the evolving demands of the legal profession and to the need for legal scholarship and education to address the public good, the new Rutgers Law School offers a comprehensive curriculum, propelled by one of the nation’s largest faculties with wide-ranging expertise. The expansive course offerings are made possible through cutting-edge immersive technology currently in place that connects the two locations and brings great legal scholars and students together in real time.

According to Co-Dean and 1983 alumnus Ronald K. Chen, Rutgers Law has a proven tradition of educating diverse new generations of legal professionals for public and private practice. “Rutgers has long provided exceptional and affordable legal educations to its students, but now as a Big Ten law school and a leader in legal education in the Northeast, we are positioned to make an impact on the national legal landscape” says Chen. “Not only will Rutgers Law School continue to further the missions of Rutgers University-Newark, Rutgers University-Camden and the entire Rutgers system, it will serve New Jersey as its public law school.” [Emphasis mine]

Did you see anything of substance in that portion above?! Academic swine excel at screwing over students and taxpayers, and they also engage in meaningless platitudes and verbal diarrhea. By the way, “co-dean” sounds idiotic. This is further compounded by the fact that cockroaches Oberdiek and Chen are acting co-deans of this cesspool. Their mothers must be immensely proud.

Other Coverage: The Philadelphia Business Journal published a Jeff Blumenthal article on this development, on August 3, 2015. That story was entitled “ABA approves Rutgers plan to merge law schools.” Check out the following excerpt:

“Rutgers University’s plan to merge its two law schools into one unified institution, yet still maintain its two campuses in Camden and Newark, N.J., has received approval from the American Bar Association.

The ABA’s section on legal education and admission to the bar voted on the plan Monday during its annual meeting. In June, the ABA’s Accreditation Committee voted to recommend approval of the proposed merger as did the Rutgers Board of Governors in April.

The integrated Rutgers Law School will begin using a single application in the fall of 2015 for the 2016 entering class.

Rutgers will use its immersive distance education technology to support expanded course offerings and bring a sense of common identity and students separated by 90 miles. The university introduced the programming technology last spring.

The school also has created one Rutgers University Law Review and combined the two school’s respective law journals.

Merging the two law schools is actually a reunification.

They were first separated into two Rutgers entities, with their own accreditation, faculty and curriculums in 1967. Law school leadership first suggested bringing the two schools back together in 2011, but the move was put on hold as Gov. Chris Christie's proposal to fold Rutgers University-Camden into Rowan University. Once that idea ran its course, Rutgers President Robert Barchi announced in 2013 the plan for the unification of the law schools.

Two co-deans will lead the merged Rutgers Law School. Rutgers said the co-deans will maintain their individual lines of authority, reporting to the chancellors in Camden and Newark.” [Emphasis mine]

For $ome rea$on, the board of governor$ decided that this supposedly single/combined toilet will still require two deans, i.e. typically the highest-paid cockroaches at an ABA institution. That actually makes perfect sense – when you realize that the “educators” do not give a damn about the students.

Conclusion: In the final analysis, this is not a surprise. The rodents at these two state law schools were planning to merge for quite a while. Plus, the ABA criminals will approve damn near any proposal from member commodes. Hell, if “law professors” and deans at each trash pit wanted to toss one student out of a window each semester, I’m sure the bitches and hags at the American Bar Association would give their approval. Of course, they would make sure that it did not occur until after the student loan check cleared.

25 comments:

Hope you will follow up with more information on this school's campuses. In-state tuition alone is $25,000. The Camden law school was sinking fast with declining enrollment numbers. It also had a 40% underemployment/unemployment rate and sub $50k salary average right after graduation. Newark props up Camden and that's what this is about. Continuing the sausage grinder of gullible law students.

Hope you will follow up with more information on this school's campuses. In-state tuition alone is $25,000. The Camden law school was sinking fast with declining enrollment numbers. It also had a 40% underemployment/unemployment rate and sub $50k salary average right after graduation. Newark props up Camden and that's what this is about. Continuing the sausage grinder of gullible law students.

You can drive from one end of NJ to the other in what, two hours? So of course the greedy pigs decided they needed two separate public law school campuses with two seperate faculties and administrations.

On August 3, 2015, Politico published a Conor Skelding article labeled “Bar association OKs Rutgers Law merger.” Take a look at this opening:

“The American Bar Association has signed off on the merger of Rutgers University's formerly separate law schools in Camden and Newark.

Newark co-dean Ronald Chen told POLITICO New Jersey in a telephone interview he was still adjusting to his new title, and its homophone.

"Over the weekend, I became a narcotic—that's the running joke," Chen said.

Chen, who was previously dean of Rutgers School of Law–Newark and earned his law degree there in 1983, will now share the title of co-dean with John Oberdiek, who had been acting dean of Rutgers School of Law–Camden.

"This really has never been done before, probably because there aren't very many law schools, if any ... where one university had two co-equal law schools already. Other mergers are usually takeovers, and that's not what this is," Chen said.

The schools' merger, which got final approval from the A.B.A. on Friday, means applicants will begin using a single application starting this fall.”

Prospective law students at RuTTger$ should use that single application to wipe their asses. There is no other use for such a document. Unless, of course, you are a moron and you consider financial suicide for the benefit of under-worked, overpaid academic cockroaches to be a useful purpose.

It requires ABA participation and blessing for a school to merge the two law schools it already owns and runs?

I guess I am surprised that the ABA could get to it so quickly, being as it seems to be absorbed in pin heads and fairies dancing thereon.

Such high level maneuvering so that prospective students will use ONE APPLICATION FORM? Really? The whole thing is a question of photocopying?

I remember the phrase, what was it, de minimus no curat lex. In my 4 decade career, I have learned that the law ONLY deals with trifles. (I carry extra commas with me wherever I go.)

This all reminds me of the Univ. of Illinois law school dean who explained to some investigating committee when the scandal broke, in defense of admitting academically non-competitive, politically connected students, was that, paraphrasing, "We 'filled' the class with competitive students-and then admitted others."

Who reasons like that? Simple, uncomplicated self-delusion. It is not reason. If I had an associate who spoke to me like that, I'd fire him or her.

So, let's "reason" MBA, law-school style. A school which can handle 200 students, could be "filled" with ONE student. Then we admit 199 non-competitive students, who, realizing their good fortune, pay 20% more for attending a prestigious institution. Need we paint the picture any more vividly? (Old Guy does not consider Illinois prestigious, but in my day, it was.)

That Dean's comments have a particular relevance to my world. I was admitted to U of I Law School on the Friday-about 3 p.m.-before classes started the following Monday. I left the school where I was enrolled (Valpo) and drove straight to Champaign.

As, theoretically, we were told, students there were admitted based on a mathematical weighting of their grade point and LSAT score, I figured I was admitted as perhaps the LAST student-the dumbest-in my class. And I decided "computers be damned-they will not predict my fate." No matter, I was happy to be back at my undergraduate alma mater.

I graduated law school in 2-1/5 years, just at the 25% mark, so I improved, I thought about 75%, and did the best I could. But now, for all I know, I was surrounded by politically connected idiots and perhaps I am barely better than them. (Perhaps I should leave my remains to Ralston Purina.)

What REALLY aggravates me is that law school deans and professors speak to us in such simplistic terms. Like we are idiots. Well, we attended the schools they claim will teach us to THINK. Really? Well, yes, I can see through what they say. It is an insult to us, students of their schools. It is as if they mock us for being stupid, having graduated from their schools-that the education we received was not very good. "We sold you a bill of goods."

Well, I have a great deal of confidence in my education and my wits. I have many times said to attorneys I am dealing with on cases who climb far too high on some horse, "Come match wits with me."

I have a good education, and in my legal community of about 900 lawyers, fear none, respect many, and wonder about some others.

If you were in law school forty years ago, Illinois may well have been prestigious. Hell, it was more prestigious as recently as five years ago, before word got out about the fraudulent reporting of LSAT scores and other ruses.

Forty years ago, even a degree from Valpo might not have been bad. Today it is a disaster.

As for Illinois, just look at the data:

http://www.lstscorereports.com/national/jobs/2013/

Only 24.7% got a job in Big Law. Only 3.5% got a federal clerkship. Who else in the class got a job with significant hope of paying enough to support the non-dischargeable debt needed to get a degree from Illinois?

Dean Chen: In form, it might not be a takeover, but the circumstantial evidence surrounding Camden Law suggests otherwise. Post recession Rutttgers-Camden was in steep decline. The adverse media articles show otherwise, asked also, an administration that faced justified criticism for faulty student debt amouts, misleading salary possibilities, and enrollment of students who never took the ABA-required LSAT. If things were/are so robust there, why did former Dean Rayman Solomon leave? Have you even looked at the above, much less the ABA 509 reports?

You are a Shitshow Shill, and it's even more galling that I know you and know that you can do better.

Show some fucking moral and intellectual courage. This is not a rowing contest.

With all due respect, I do not see much value in profanity and name-calling.

Now, hold on, I love it just as much as the next person.

BUT, we lawyers here, trying to represent our "clients," the 0Ls, and whatever we personally believe, is really unimportant when working to benefit our "clients."

We need to raise issues, comments, etc., which will attract and engage the minds of 0L's and persuade them that Law School is a fool's education. And a crippling blow to their financial, social, and emotional future.

I am 38 years in, would NEVER do it again, have 3 sons, and NONE of them will be lawyers. What more can I say?

Back on April 2, 2015, RuTTgers TToday published a release labeled “Rutgers Board of Governors Approves Merger of Two Law Schools with Distinct Locations Pending ABA Approval.” This garbage merger was in the works for months.

“The Rutgers Board of Governors today approved the merger of the two Rutgers law schools into one unified law school with two distinct locations in Camden and Newark, contingent upon approval by the American Bar Association.

Poised to be a leader in legal education in the Northeast and among the nation’s public law schools, Rutgers Law School will deliver a comprehensive curriculum enhanced by technology, offering exceptional breadth and depth in theory, practice and interdisciplinary courses; an alumni network spanning two of the five largest legal markets in the nation; a strong tradition of diversity and social impact; and a higher national profile to attract top students. An integrated Rutgers Law School would begin using a single application in the fall of 2015 for the 2016 entering class.

“This merger represents an unprecedented and ambitious play in legal education,” says Rutgers Law–Camden Acting Dean John Oberdiek. “We believe strongly under this new model, that there are increased opportunities for students at each location to advance their career searches and to learn from a wider selection of world-class Rutgers faculty. Rutgers Law School will be greater than the sum of its parts and will strengthen the reputation of a Rutgers legal education.”

“Rutgers Law School will be uniquely situated to be able to draw upon the strengths and clarity of mission of Rutgers University-Newark, Rutgers University-Camden and the entire Rutgers system, to provide an exceptional legal education to our students, promote publicly engaged scholarship by which to use the law as an instrument of positive social change, and foster interdisciplinary collaboration with all our Rutgers colleagues,” says Acting Rutgers Law–Newark Dean Ronald K. Chen. “At this defining moment for legal education and for the legal profession, the unification of Rutgers Law will enable us to advance all those goals with a new energy.”

Rutgers Law School will employ a robust faculty of 100 scholars, with particular strengths in criminal law, intellectual property, corporate and business law, health law and public interest law, all advancing a comprehensive curriculum facilitated by state-of-the-art technology. With more than 1,000 students drawn from across the country, Rutgers Law School also will be among the nation’s largest law schools, yet it will boast a student-faculty ratio on par with other leading public law schools.”

No one outside the toilet halls of academia refers to “educator” douche-bags as “robust faculty.” Your typical “professor” is about as vibrant as a 17 year old cat – except the animal is more productive.

I don't know how many people know this, but Rutgers Newark Law School used to have a much better law school ranking. When I was applying to law schools in the very late 1970s, I was attending a small college that did not have a pre-law advisor, so my friend at Columbia University arranged for me to speak to that school's advisor. When I told him that I had been accepted at Rutgers Newark and George Washington, he told me that since both schools had approximately the same ranking (I think they were both around # 40 or higher), I should go to Rutgers if I wanted to stay in the NJ-NY area and also save money on tuition. (Rutgers' tuition was only a few thousand dollars a year and GW was expensive). In the years since my graduation, GW has gone up and up and Rutgers has gone down and down. I don't blame that pre-law advisor; he gave me what was good advice at that time. I recall that Rutgers Newark suffered an unfair decline in the ratings in the 1980s when the ABA accreditation committee stated that the physical plant (mostly the elevators) at Rutgers (then at 15 Washington Street) were in terrible shape and that the school would lose its accreditation unless repairs were made. The general press ran articles with headlines stating that Rutgers Newark was "in danger of losing accreditation." Of course, that's not the only reason for R-N's decline, but it seemed to be the start of it. I'd be interested in seeing a list of law school rankings in 1980, 1990 and 2000 to see how various schools' rankings have changed, but I have not found a good source for that yet. If anyone knows of a source, and could post it, I would appreciate it.

I graduated from Rutgers Camden Law in 1974. After working for the government for four years, I worked 60 hours a week in private practice. 60 hours a week was the least I worked. So, I did well, have a good practice, although I only work 40 hours a week now. The law business is hard work, but anyone can make a living at it if they decide to work their butts off. Perhaps the people who complain the most just have more time because they don't spend the hours it takes to be a success. You are not guaranteed money simply because you are an attorney. You have to work ..... a lot. Many of us would not do it again as it is a very hard way to make a living, if you do it right. You guys sound like you just like to bitch instead of working ... all ... the ... time. It is not easy, as can be seen by the large number of people who sit around and complain.

Objective

This blog is maintained by a graduate of a third tier law school. My goal is to educate prospective law students about the perils of obtaining a legal education. There are many pitfalls - the debt load, the oversupply of lawyers, the fact that there are not enough legal jobs to satisfy nearly 45,000 annual law graduates, and the reality that the majority of law school graduates will end up with low-paying jobs upon completion of their "legal studies."